ML20009H235
| ML20009H235 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 08/04/1981 |
| From: | Bauser D METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8108070079 | |
| Download: ML20009H235 (7) | |
Text
LIC 8/4/81 x'
?
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f/f A
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO.,
~
AUG 51981 >
h\\
m ! tia Secretary BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA'
. ; a Smica L!r.c.I In the Matter of-
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289 SP
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
. ' ' _ ' ' N.
g N
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
'9s l'
/
ic LICENSEE'S ANSWER TO AAMODT MOTION G
D TO TAKE OFFICIAL NOTICE c
~
gN
[/
OF TWO NRC LETTERS t
4 By motion dated July 20, 1981, Mrs. Aamodt as RtM Board to take official notice of two NRC letters which Mrs.
Aamodc describes summarily in her motion.
While Licensee is hesitant to set a litigious precedent on what we presume is only the first of a number of attempts to reopen th'is record, we nevertheless are compelled to object to Mrs. Aamodt's request in view of the inapplicability of the doctrine of official notice to documents such as those identified by Mrs. Aamodt, and because the documents in question,'on their face, would not appear to impart information of such significance that the ' record should be reopened to receive t. tem.
In her motion, Mrs. Aamodt first refers to a letter t
to all Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) licensees in which, she states, t
j "8 deficiencies in the design of the ATOG [ Abnormal Transient Operator Guidelines] program and its procedures are listed."
dated June 1, [s i
The generic letter to which Mrs. Aamodt refers, 1981, identifies deficiencies in the Staff's review of the
//
ATOG manual prepared by B&W for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit One, I
8108070079 810804 PDR ADOCK 05000289 G
not for TMI-1.
Nowhere in Mrs. Aamodt's motion is the significance of these deficiencies to TMI-l's ATOG planning described.
It seems reasonable to assume that having had another' deficiencies speci-fically brought to Lice.:see's attention would aid Licensee in avoiding the same pitfalls -- hardly a problem.
Nor does Mrs.
Aamodt explain the relationship of this information to the voluminous record and lengthy proposed findings filed to date in the TMI-l restart proceeding.
Mrs. Aamodt's second document is identified as an NRC letter to all licensees in which "[t]he deficiencies in overall training per the March 28, 1980 letter of H. Denton have been detected by the Licensing Branch in administering NRC examina-tions."
It is Mrs. Ae.modt's view that "[slince the TMI operators were administered licensing examinations in April, these obser-vations may very well apply to the operators at TMI."
The July 1, 1981 letter to which Mrs. Aamodt refers is simply a generic infor-mational letter to all licensees of operating plants and construc-tion permits from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
The l
letter identifies an NRC report on steam generator overfill and asks licensees and permittees to evaluate this report, consider which scenarios identified in the report are credible for their l
plants, and factor this information into their respective training programs.
Here, again, Mrs. Aamodt does not identify t
any reason why this generic letter affects in any manner any of the testimony or proposed findings filed in the TMI-l restart hearing.
Nor does she identify any information imparted in this letter as particularly troubling for TMI-l or why this j
guidance cannot easily be incorporated in Licensee's continued training curr#culum.
As Licensee has discussed in great detail in a previous 1/
- pleading, the traditional doctrine of official notice is specifi-cally included in the NRC's Rules of Practice.
10 CFR S 2.743(i).
This doctrine permits a licensing board to ad ait into evidence indisputable facts without the opportunity for cross-examination.
See Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 201 (1980).
Because the infor-mation is not subject to controversy, and is strictly limited to matters of common knowledge, it would be a waste of time and resources to impose the usual evidentiary requirement of prod;c-tion of a witness on such matters.
However, opinions, judgments and conclusions are not subject to official notice for the obvious reason that they are not indisputable factual matters of common knowledge.
To the contrary, by definition they are subject to controversy.
See Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (Nine Mile Point, Unit 2), LBP-74-26, 7 AEC 758, 760 (1974).
Neither of the documents identified by Mrs. Aamodt fall within the narrow class of documents to which the doctrine 2/
of official notice applies.-
Neither document relates matters of common knowledge; rather, the staff statements at issue here include disputable matters of fact and opinion.
The documents therefore cannot be officially noticed.
See Tr. 20,189 (Smith).
1/
See Licensee's Answer to Intervenor Steven C. Sholly's Motion to Take Official Notice of Certain Portions of NUREG-0667 and of Certain Other Facts and Documents, May 11, 1981, at 2-6.
See l
also Licensee's Response to UCS' Request to Take Official Notice, l
May 21, 1981.
2/
Mrs. Aamodt does not explain why she believes these documents should be officially noticed, other than to state that they are relevant to TMI-1.
l
Moreover, it is apparently Mrs. Aamodt's view that because of the relevance of ATOG and steam generator overfill to TMI-1, any licensing correspondence with the NRC on these subjects constitutes information for which the record should be reopened, and of which official notice ought to be taken.
But this sort of generic licensing correspondence between the Staff and licensees is virtually a daily occurrence.
In this and evo,y other licensing hearing, the record would never close if it were required to reflect every potentially relevant piece of correspondence or event transpiring in the subject docket.
In the TMI-l restart hearing, the record has been closed for a number of weeks.
Absent compelling new circum-4 stances directly bearing upon the outcome of the proceeding, the record ought not to be reopened.
See Northern Indiana Public Service Company (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear-1),
ALAB-227, 8 AEC 416, 418 (1974).
For the reasons stated above, Licensee objects to Mrs. Aamodt's July 20, 1981 Motion to the Board to Take Official Notice.
l Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
$Yb Ernest L.
Blake, Jr.
Deborah B.
Bauser Counsel for Licensee 1800 M Street, N.W.
l Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 822-1000 Dated:
August 4, 1981
LIC 8/4/81 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289 SP
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing " Licensee's Answer to Aamodt Motion to Take Official Notice of Two NRC Letters" were served this 4th day of August, 1981 by deposit in the U.S.
mail, first class, postage prepaid, to the individuals identified on the attached Service List.
b eJ.w d u S. L u e Deborah B.
Bauser
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
SERVICE LIST Ivan W. Smith, Esquire John A. Ievin, Esquire ChairIran Assistant Counsel Atcmic Safety and Licensing Pennsylvania Public Utility Comnission Board P.O. Box 3265 U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Ccmnission Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Washington, D.C.
20555 Karin W. Carter, Esquire Dr. Walter H. Jordan Robert Adler, Esquire Atanic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel 505 Executive House 881 West Outer Drive P.O. Box 2357 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Harrisburg, Penn.sylvania 17120 Dr. Lil,3a W. Little John E. Minnich Atanic Safety and Licensing Chaiman, Dauphin Cbunty Board Board Panel of Ccmnissioners 5000 Hennitage Drive Dauphin County Courthouse Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Front and Market Streets Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 James R. Tourtellotte, Esquire Office of the Executive Iegal Director Walter W. Cohen, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Eegulatory Comnission Consuner Advocate I
Washington, D.C.
20555 office of Consumer Advocate 1425 Strawberry Square Docketing and Service Section Harrisburg, Permsylvania 17127 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Washington, D.C.
20555
. Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire Pob2rt Q. Pollard 2320 North Second Street 609 lentpelier Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Ms. Iouise Bradford Chauncey Kepford
'IMI AI.EIU Judith H. Johnsrud 315 Peffer Street Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102 433 Orlando Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire Hazmon & Weiss Marvin I. Iawis 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 6504 Bradford Terrace Washington, D.C.
20006 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149 Steven C. Sholly Marjorie M. Avnodt t.hion of Concerned Scientists R. D. 5 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 601 Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 Washington, D.C.
20006
'1hctnas J. Germine, Esquire Gail Bradford Deputy Attorney General ANGRY Division of Law - Room 316 245 West Philadelphia Street 1100 Raymond Boulevard York, Pennsylvania 17404 Newark, New Jersey 07102 William S. Jordan, III, Esquire Hazmon & Weiss 1725 bye Street, N.W., Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20006 l
a l
,y
-,s
,-.-r-sv
,-~.----.y,-
n
-